Reconsidering the need for a public editor
The New York Times appoints its third public editor, Clark Hoyt, and good for them, I suppose. (Via Romenesko.) They didn't ask me -- to serve or for my opinion -- but I think it's time that newspapers realize they don't need public editors any longer. Technology and the personal publishing revolution is quickly making them as obsolete as printing presses typewriters.
This is a new position for me. I enjoy reading ombudsmen and, several years ago, tried to figure out how to appoint one to our staff. But times change. Blogs of readers now perform many questioning roles fulfilled by public editors. Between those and letters to the editor, discussion of newspaper performance is robust, to say nothing of timely and rigorous.
That's only one side of the equation. On the other side of the equal sign is the voice of the newspaper. At too many newspapers, including the Times, a ranking editor does not blog. Does not routinely publicly answer questions. Does not publicly address the paper's decisions. (I presume that the editor does respond to readers privately. Every editor I've met does that.)
Bill Keller's memo announcing Hoyt's hiring: We expect him to hold us accountable to our own standards, to serve as an advocate for the interests of readers, and to give readers an independent eye into the workings of this great news organization.
For his part, Mr. Hoyt said that he could not predict what subjects he might focus on. "They are likely to be driven by what readers care about and complain about," he said.
Right. That's what a good editor's blog could do. Every editor should have one. At the least -- perhaps as an incremental step for the paper -- Hoyt ought to create and vigorously use his own blog on the job.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
An editor's blog, no matter how good, is not a substitute for an ombudsman or public editor. Objectivity and independence are the operative terms here.
Posted on May 3, 2007 3:04 PM
Translation of JR's post:
Why hire an employee and pay him/her for for producing something that we can ignore for free from our readers and our area bloggers?
Posted on May 4, 2007 11:10 AM
Liz 1 JR 0
Posted on May 4, 2007 3:00 PM
Objectivity and independence are vital, Liz. And good public editors can achieve that. But look at the Times. Its public editors write twice a month. Sometimes the editor doesn't respond to their requests for information. Imagine, then, if Bill Keller had a blog. Readers could pose questions and comments to him directly. He could answer directly. Readers could come to their own conclusions, much as they do here.
And they can make their own judgments about the insight and thoughtfulness of the commenters, too. :)
Posted on May 4, 2007 3:11 PM
I briefly worked with Clark Hoyt at KRT. He's a great choice. He, more than any exec I've ever seen, wanted to do what was going through the organization from top to bottom.
Hate to disagree with Fred, but here's the obvious answer -- public editors can ignore people with greater ease than a blogging editor! Imagine how much e-mail the public editors get at large newspapers, and then imagine how much of it never gets a public discussion. I'm not sure it'd be possible to respond publicly to everything they get -- we got bizarre mail at my college paper such as the claim that we were covering up the theft of the 1988 presidential election from its rightful winners, two guys from the Philippines, so you can imagine what the Times must get.
Posted on May 4, 2007 6:44 PM
Beau,
Ombudsman or Editor-Blogger both can be equally arrogant unresponsive and circle the wagons "smart al-ecks" .
Posted on May 5, 2007 1:07 AM
unresponsive == "they don't agree with me"
Posted on May 5, 2007 7:02 PM